26 Jul
2010
26 Jul
'10
11:43 a.m.
I do not think I have a clear opinion on this. And I
would be very
interested for you, devs of audio software, to share your opinions. But
lately,
after having been quite tired by fighting the limitations linux audio has
today for making certain types of music, I've been wondering whether
some software is better off being proprietary. It might not be reviewed
code, but it works. And I don't really want anyone to be able to change
code of, say, FL Studio, because it is a great piece of software already. I
don't remember ever encountering a bug while working in it.
Of course, I personally switched to Linux because of philosophical
principles. And now I find myself confused. Is it possible that some
software
is too complex, needs too tight a development and thus good funding to be
free? And instead needs to be proprietary to get things done?
Any software, be it opensource or proprietary, needs someone in charge. If I
modify some opensource package for my own use, that's my problem, but if I
want to distribute the modification, I think it needs to go through a
maintainer or moderator, just to keep things under some sort of control.
Proprietary stuff, of course, keeps the whole thing closed tight. One can
attempt to contact the proprietor with suggestions and feature requests. Some
have open ears and minds, others, you bought it, good luck.
Even without myself touching code, I have had loads of features incorporated
into GPLed programs after suggesting to the (main) author. The mindset is
simply different.